Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The nature of the Universe

  1. Jul 30, 2013 #1
    I've been reading up on the quantum observer problem and what it says on the nature of the Universe. Two theories that interest me greatly are the Many Worlds theory and the Biocentric theory (which says consciousness comes before matter and is the core part of the universe).

    Do you think these two theories can co-exist? Do you favor either? Sorry if this has been discussed before.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 30, 2013 #2
    The many worlds theory is an issue for the interpretation of QM rather than cosmology. Ive never heard of the other theory you mention. Sounds like pseudo science to me. Physics forums rules are that we only discuss material in the scientific literature. So please provide a reference in a proper journal or at least an arxiv paper form a reputable source.
     
  4. Jul 30, 2013 #3

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    What is it that you think could possibly be conscious with no matter around ???
     
  5. Jul 30, 2013 #4
    Hello Jordan,

    Thank you for your question.

    Regarding Biocentric theory - when you mention consciousness do you then speak of energy?
     
  6. Jul 31, 2013 #5

    Chalnoth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    There is no "quantum observer problem." Perhaps you mean the quantum measurement problem?

    The issue here is that wavefunction collapse doesn't require an observer.
     
  7. Jul 31, 2013 #6
    I understand what you are asking and in my opinion the answer is yes. You may note that most dont take my opinion seriously though.
     
  8. Jul 31, 2013 #7

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    OK, so you apparently also believe that "consciousness comes before matter" so perhaps you can tell me what you think has consciousness if there is no matter around?
     
  9. Aug 1, 2013 #8
    I understand biblical arguments are frowned upon. I take consciousness as the ability to think.
    You might like to think though how a group of elements that have no consciousness can gain it, or where do your thoughts come from.
     
  10. Aug 1, 2013 #9

    Ryan_m_b

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    There is no evidence that consciousness can exist without matter. Indeed there is no evidence that consciousness can exist without a brain since we've extensively studied how damage to certain parts of the brain cause changes (and even loss in) consciousness. Whilst neuroscience has yet to find an answer to the hard problem of consciousness (essentially: how is the experience of consciousness generated?) there is no evidence supporting any other assertion on the nature of consciousness.
     
  11. Aug 1, 2013 #10

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    That is not any kind of answer to my question, unless you are positing a "god" and simply avoiding saying so to keep from breaking forum rules. If that is the case then this discussion is pointless.

    WHAT is it that thinks if there is no matter?
     
  12. Aug 1, 2013 #11
    Consciousness is just energy. Like everything else.
     
  13. Aug 1, 2013 #12

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    Not a helpful statement. What is it that is conscious when there is no matter around?
     
  14. Aug 1, 2013 #13

    Chalnoth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Energy is a property of matter*. It does not exist independent of it.

    * For "matter" here I am using an extended definition: any quantum-mechanical field. It doesn't make sense to talk about energy without also talking about what field is carrying that energy.
     
  15. Aug 1, 2013 #14
    I strongly suspect 'consciousness' is a philosophical issue without very widespread agreement.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness discusses some of that.


    plants, for example, evidence 'consciousness'...and can 'communicate'...depending on your definitions....I think 'information' might be a better alternative to consider....

    In any case, at the current stage of development, seems physical sciences like physics in all probability favors many worlds as a better possibility.

    I don't think 'information requires matter....as long as entropy is not at a maximum, information can flow...processes, relationships can take place as, for example, when we approach the end of the ever expanding 'cold' universe.

    Regarding information,

    Jordan: Is your 'quantum observation problem' this?:


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics
     
  16. Aug 1, 2013 #15
    A rock is composed of matter, the atoms within it have energy, so does a rock think. Of course it also raises the question does matter exist, if none came out of the BB how then can it now exist, yes I have heard of the higgs field which then leads to where did the higgs field come from. If thought is just energy could the energy that came out of the BB think. How does matter in the form of the brain cause thought to come out of what are essentially electric pulses. Or is thought just a pattern in an electric field? in which case how does the brain cause that pattern to change to produce thought.
     
  17. Aug 1, 2013 #16

    Chalnoth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    This is outside the scope of this forum. A forum dedicated to neuroscience would be more appropriate, I think.
     
  18. Aug 1, 2013 #17

    micromass

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    Locked pending moderation.

    Update: thread will remain locked.
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2013
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook